This is mixing up cause and effect. The audience (consumers of art or the voters) determines both what art enjoys high status, as well as what regulations the regulators can get away with or even feel compelled to instate.Artists are slaves to their fickle fans, and regulators to the fickle median voter.That's not necessarily true. An artist can produce a piece of art with wonderful characters the audience loves, and a brilliant, intricate plot, and also include some controversial politcal element that their fans may disagree with. Because the rest of the art is really good, some fans are persuaded of the rectitude of the political element by the Halo Effect.
I'm not much for poetry, but even for a poem "Howl" doesn't strike me as being very good.
Scott Sumner argued that narrative art is liberal here. He also said complaining about the liberalism of the media is like complaining about the Catholicism of the Pope.
Artists may be slaves but the supply of artists may not be perfectly elastic. If certain groups are more skilled in arts the audience wants you'll get a skew in idea influence.
Furthermore, if the audience wants (let us say) slam-bang action films but people likely to be action stars are more libertarian, then the status they derive as action stars may be shared with their political views even if their political views in and of themselves don't help them become better action stars.
This is mixing up cause and effect. The audience (consumers of art or the voters) determines both what art enjoys high status, as well as what regulations the regulators can get away with or even feel compelled to instate.
Artists are slaves to their fickle fans, and regulators to the fickle median voter.
If artists tend to be drawn from a subpopulation with a distinctive set of values, beliefs, and biases then art -- esp high status art -- is likely to skew the debate in ways that favor those values. On some margins things will open up, on others debate will be closed off. Which is exactly what we've seen in the last 50 years, especially as art has gotten more monolithically leftist and anti-rightist (I use this term because socially libertarians and leftists tend to skew in similar directions).
This is mixing up cause and effect. The audience (consumers of art or the voters) determines both what art enjoys high status, as well as what regulations the regulators can get away with or even feel compelled to instate.Artists are slaves to their fickle fans, and regulators to the fickle median voter.That's not necessarily true. An artist can produce a piece of art with wonderful characters the audience loves, and a brilliant, intricate plot, and also include some controversial politcal element that their fans may disagree with. Because the rest of the art is really good, some fans are persuaded of the rectitude of the political element by the Halo Effect.
You got it. Your analysis applies to agnostic's case of regulation and voters too. Policies can hitchhike on other more popular policies.
I'm not much for poetry, but even for a poem "Howl" doesn't strike me as being very good.
Scott Sumner argued that narrative art is liberal here. He also said complaining about the liberalism of the media is like complaining about the Catholicism of the Pope.
perhaps a better definition of what "art" you are talking about would lead you to some answers.
You do indeed cast a very wide net with your postings.
political art is dogmareligious art is fetishart as ritual evokes engagement or disengagement.
i feel certain there is more ideas about what art is.
anyone?
Artists may be slaves but the supply of artists may not be perfectly elastic. If certain groups are more skilled in arts the audience wants you'll get a skew in idea influence.
Furthermore, if the audience wants (let us say) slam-bang action films but people likely to be action stars are more libertarian, then the status they derive as action stars may be shared with their political views even if their political views in and of themselves don't help them become better action stars.
This is mixing up cause and effect. The audience (consumers of art or the voters) determines both what art enjoys high status, as well as what regulations the regulators can get away with or even feel compelled to instate.
Artists are slaves to their fickle fans, and regulators to the fickle median voter.
If artists tend to be drawn from a subpopulation with a distinctive set of values, beliefs, and biases then art -- esp high status art -- is likely to skew the debate in ways that favor those values. On some margins things will open up, on others debate will be closed off. Which is exactly what we've seen in the last 50 years, especially as art has gotten more monolithically leftist and anti-rightist (I use this term because socially libertarians and leftists tend to skew in similar directions).
Art is not a mirrorArt is a hammer.